Wits nub xu.urtig in ralinuint.

PRINCIPAL BlISINESS OF THE WEEK.

Hos= or Loans. Monday;.July 7. Royal Assent to Industrial and Provident Societies Bill, and the Stock in-Trade Redemption Bill—Nawab of Surat Treaty Bill thrown out—Small Debts Imprisonment Act Amendment (Scotland) Bill read a third time and passed. Tuesday, July 8. The Crimean inquiry; Lord Lucan's Question—Dissenters' Marriages Bill read a second time—Sleeping Statutes Repeal Bill read a third time and passed—Advowsons Bill read a second time—Evidence in Foreign Suits Bill read a third time and passed—Cambridge University Bill read a third time and passed.

Thursday, July 10. Dwellings for the Labouring Classes (Ireland) Bill read a third time and passed—Church-building Commission Bill read a second time-- Bishoprics of London and Durham ; the Lord Chancellor's Bill read a first time. .Friday, July 11. Poland ; Lord Lyndhurst's Statement—The Crimean Inquiry ; Lord Lucan's Question and Lord Panmure's Answer—Parochial Schools (Scotland); the Lord Advocate's Bill read a second time—Advowsons Bill read a third time and- passed—Militia Ballot Suspension Bill read a third time and passed.

110USE OF COMMONS. .Mho day. July 7. Appellate Jurisdiction Bill read a second time, by 191 to 142—Appropriation Bill read a first time.

Tuesday, July 8. Public Health Bill thrown out—Court of Chancery (Ireland) Receivers ; Mr. Fitzgerald's Bill committed—Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ire- land); Mr. Fitzgerald's Bill committed—National Gallery Address ; the Queen's Answer—Naval Officers ; Captain Scobell's Motion—" Count-out."

Wednesday, July 9. Civil Service ; Lord Goderich's Motion—Tenant Right (Ireland); Mr. Moore's Bill withdrawn—Appellate Jurisdiction (Salaries and Re- thin.' Pensions); Resolution in Committee—Indemnity Bill read a first time— Board of Health Continuance Bill read a first time.

Thursday, July 10. vaccination; Mr. Cowper's Bill withdrawn—Burial Acts Amendment ; Sir George Grey's Bill withdrawn—Appellate Jurisdiction (Salaries and Retiring Pensions); Report of Resolution received—Appropriation Bill com- mitted—Appellate Jurisdiction Bill ; Mr. Raikes CUrfie's Amendment carried against the Government, by 155 to 133—Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill read a. second time—Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill read a third time and passed— Court of Chancery (Ireland) Receivers Bill read a third time and passed—Wills and Administrations ; the Solicitor-General's Bill withdrawn—Dublin University Bill withdrawn—Poor-law Amendment (No. 2); Mr. Bouverie's Bill withdrawn—In- demnity Bill read a second time. Friday, July 11. Coast Defences ; Mr. Hayter's Notice of Motion—Mr. James Sadleir ; Mr. Napier's Question and Mr. Fitzgerald's Answer—County Courts Bill in Committee—Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill read a third time and passed—Epis- copal and Capitular Estates Continuance Bill committed—Indemnity Bill com- mitted.

TIME-TA.BLM.

The Lords.

Hour of Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment.

T'he COismons.

Hour of Meeting. Hour of Adjournment.

Monday

Oa 8h oto

Monday 4h .(m) 21, Sirs Tuesday Oh 7h Om Tuesday Noon .... Oh 55m

611 .... 9h Om

Wednesday No sitting.

Wednesday 31t

5h 59m Thursday

5h 7k Om

Thursday Noon .... 8h 30m

6h .(na) 2h Om Friday 5h 8h 30m Friday th .(m) 2h 45m

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.

Early on Monday evening, Mr. EVELYN DENISON presented a petition from Baron Wensleydale, setting forth that he had been created a Peer of the United Kingdom for the term of his patural life ; but that the House of Peers had decided that he was not entitled to sit in Parliament,, either in virtue of the letters-patent granting the peerage, or the said letters-patent with the usual writ of summons; that he believed the ' Crown has the undoubted prerogative of creating peerage for life'only ; that a bill "to make better provision for the discharge of the Apppltate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords," which had passed that House and now stood for second reading before the House of Commons, did not save. the Queen's prerogative as to the creation of life Peers of Parliament; that the said hill, unless amended, will be held effectually to prevent the future exercise of the Royal prerogative, and to prejudice the rights of the petitioner to sit and vote in the House of Lords; that he ought not - to be prejudiced in the exercise of his right either to raise the question by legal proceedings or to petition the House of Lords to rescind its re- solution ; and he therefore prays the House so to amend the bill with leave the prerogative in this respect and his right in virtue of its exer- cise to sit and vote in. the House of Lords entirely unaffected by the bill, "more especially as the question of her Majesty's prerogative and the petitioner's right is in nowise necessary to be considered with a_ +jaw to the efficiency of the bill as an improvement of the appellate jurisdic- tion."

Shortly after this petition was presented, the Arrolcsay-G=miter. moved the second reading of the bill, in a speech explaining the position of the appellate jurisdiction and the character of the proposed remedy, without much advocacy of that remedy, and almost omitting the topic supplied by Lord Wensleydale's petition. He described the unsatis- factory state of the House of Lords as a court of appeal,—frequently only two not =frequently only one Judge, the Lord Chancellor, sitting on important cases of appeal • the inconvenience arising from delay during the prorogation of Parliament ; the impossibility of procuring compulsory attendance on appeals,—all evils that could not be obviated without an act of Parliament. The House would have to consider whether the bill sent down by the Lords was the best and only remedy. Some think it would be better to withdraw the appellate jurisdiction from the House of Lords : but there are grave if not insuperable diffi- culties to that course. It has been said that to do so would be to strip the House of Lords of one of the elements of its dignity he could not look upon it in that light, because he saw no necessary connexion between the legislative functions of the House of Lords and these ju- dicial functions which, after all, are exercised by the Law Lords, the Lay Lords acting as mutes. But if those functions were transferred; to what tribunal should they be transferred ? To the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, some said. But if that were made the sole tri- bunal of appeal, it must be recast. There is a greater difficulty in the way : the last thing the Lords would consent to is the surrender of their jurisdiction, and there is nothing left but to improve it. They had frus- trated her Majesty's will by refusing to admit Lord Wensleydale. Hoyt then, is a sufficient number of able men to be provided ? Large fortunes are not now made at the bar as formerly, and lawyers will not take upon themselves the burden of an hereditary peerage. What is to be done If the Commons should enter into a. contest with the House of Lords, how long would it last, and what would become of the unfortunate suitors in the meanwhile ? The easiest mode of rendering the tribunal of ap- peal efficient is the mode proposed by the bill. He could only present it as "a mode of getting out of difficulties." A better course might be suggested ; but the question was, could it be carried into practical

Sittings this Week, 4; Time, 10h 30m this Session, 75; — 189h Om Sittings this Week, 7, Time, 42h 24m this Session, 103; — 7111h 22m.

operation ? The House should not neglect a. measure that would effect a great and required improvement.

Mr. BOWYER moved that the bill should, be read a second time that day six months. He inveighed against the measure ; describing it as an " expedient to stop a clamour"; as falling short of the real evils requiring

remedy ; as creating a new Order of nobility, Peers who would neither have seats in the House of Lords nor be represented there ; as bringing about changes in the constitution, by enabling the House of Lords to sit during a prorogation ; as, after all, creating an unsatisfactory tribunal ; and retaining the double appeal existing at present. Mr. Bowyer sug- gested that a Supreme Court of Appeal should be established; composed of five Judges—the best men who could be selected from the bench or the bar, acquainted with the various laws of the empire, and sitting all the year round.

Mr. ROBERT PEttimmone seconded the amendment. He looked upon the bill; originating in a strange eomprontise of pettiest, as a hasty, ill- considered measure, that would-only skm over the disease- without caring it, and would, if carried, establish a courtof judicature in the last resort alienated from the sympathy and confidence of the people. Mr. Warrnsme spoke in favour of the bill, and taunted its opponents with having failed to suggest any other mode of avoiding the difficulty-. He concurred in the principle but not in some of the detaile of the bill.

Sir TAMES GRAHAM said that he had great respect for the gentlemen of the long robe but as four of them had addressed the House in succes- sion, he hoped they would allow one not learned in the law to address them. Mr. Whiteside had passed a glowing eulogium upon the House of Lords : but if it had been so strong in legal efficiency, whence arose this bill sent down front that House ? Is that House an efficient tri- bunal in the last resort ? The Attorney-General had described its defects as glaring. He had said also that a better course might be adopted ; and he added as a reason for passing the bill, that the Howe of Lords would not surrender its appellate jurisdiction. Sir James remembered Lord Melbourne's jocose remark, that he was always filled with apprehension when. it was said that something must be done" : the Attorney- General admitted that here the best remedy was not proposed—that the House of Lords would not surrender its jurisdiction—yet that "some- thing must be done." "have we arrived at that point, that we the Commons of England, if we shall be satisfied with the judgment of the House of Lords as to the ineffi- dent mode in which they now exercise their judicial functions, are to be told, when called upon to supply a remedy, that, though a coordinate branch of the Legislature, we are not to exercise our own judgment with respect to this remedy ; and that we are to be coerced by the assertion of her Majesty's Attorney-General that the House of Lords will not surrender its appellate jurisdiction, even though we should be of opinion that the time has arrived when a new tribunal should be created ? " It might be possible to propose a better bill : the House of Lords has inquired, and it is not un- reasonable that the House of Commons should ask for time to inquire like- wise.

The bill came before theni in a double aspect; it sought to dispose of a controversy as to peerages for life, and to remedy the deficiencies of appel- late jurisdiction. With regard to the first, a compromise was a matter of necessity in order that the Government might be released from their life peerage difficulty and the Opposition from their straggle with the Crown. lhit the Reuse of Commons ought to view with jealousy a compromise based on mutual convenience. There was nothing new in it. In 1719, when the Peerage question was last discussed in that House, a bill moved by the Go- vernment and supported by the Opposition. came down to the House of Coin- mons. Sir Robert Walpole, united with his oldest opponents and opposed by its warmest partisans, met and defeated it with signal success_ Sir Robert ublished apamphlet on that occasion and it contained a passage admirably illustrating the present position of affairs.. He said—" Amid all the numerous objections to this worthy scheme, I am free to own that there is one thing in it which deserves commendation, for it has produced a never- before-known unanimity among our great men. It has yoked the lion with the lamb—[I don't know whether we may not say the same of this bill after the speeches of the honourable and learned Member for Enniskillen and the honeurable. and learned Attorney-General]—the Whigs with the Tories, men in power with those they have turned out of it—.[the honourable Mem- ber far 'Enniskillen sees some analogy already, I imaginel—Ministers of state are become patriots,, and join with their professed enemies in lessen- ing that prerogative they have so often occasion for." Sir James continued his own remarks—"]. am almost ashamed to quote a passage from another pamphlet, because it is not a pamphlet of Walpole, but of Sir Richard Steele, who took part in that great struggle, and who wrote apamphlet called The _Plebeian. He mentions a suspicion that certain great influences were afloat to carry the bill, which had come down as a. compromise from the other House ; and he describes some nameless Member under the designation of Esau, whom he denounces as The greatest traitor to civil society that ever yet appeared, who shall contend for such a bill in the Commons with the as- surance in his pocket of being a Peer as soon as the bill passes. I lmow not whether that passage is at all applicable to the present ease ; but there are suimiciona which will,, of course, be heard on all auch occasions." Even alit-were admitted that the bill is not a compromise, every line is marked by that feebleness and obscurity inherent in middle measures. But there is no doubt as to the compromise. The two sets of authors of the measure took opposite views on the third reading. "The Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Council declared that they would never have given their consent to the bill if it had limited the prerogative with.respeet to the creation of Peers for life ; while the Lord Chief Justice of England- and Lord St. Leonardo declared that they would not have consented to it if it had contained a recognition of the prerogative a the Crown to create such peerages. Of two things one—either the majority of the House of Lords is a,eceived-with. respect to this measure, or her Majesty's servants who have advised it have unintentionally betrayed the prerogative. It is a dilemma from which there is no escape. ("Hear, hear !" from Lord Tohn Russell.) For the House of Commons there is one escape—the rejection of the mea- sure."

Turning to the clauses of the bill, Sir James criticized them 'with un- sparing vigour. Take the fourth clause. The apparent meaning of that clause would be that the Crown might appoint two Deputy-Speakers, and fill up the, other two peerages with persons not of the legal profession. But the right construction is, that only two Deputy-Speakers may be appointed ; the provision for four life Peers being made to enable these Deputy-Speak- ers to retire in order that fresh ones may be appointed. The bill leaves in uncertaintithe great question of life peerages. He entertained the gravest doubts as to the policy of creating life Peers. An hereditary and independ- ent Peerage is the characteristic of a mixed Monarchy. The nominees of Council in the Colonies are quasi life Peers ; and nothing has been more in- jurious to the Colonies than the system of nominees. The evil to be coun- teracted was, that in the House of Lords there is too much of alaw origin, and that the sons-of 'great lawyers inheriting-peerages are without adequate means of sustaining their dignity. Now the bill seeks to make poverty for the first time one of the ingredients in the qualification for a life peerage: Here will be a degraded class, looked down upon by the hereditary Peers on account of its poverty, No Chancellor will ever obtain an hereditary peer- age because he is 'preiminent, but because he may be rich and childless. The bill limits the life peerages to four : but the Deputy-Speakers must be aged men ; if from age and infirmity they cease to perform their judicial functions, they will still remain life Peers, and unless you legislate again you will be in the same position as at present. The remedy fails. -Nor could we atop there. Poverty is not confined to the law ; the law is more lucrative than arms ; the 1..ad- rs of the bar are in the receipt of larger in- comes than their predecessors, "I doubt whether at any period the re- ceipts of the bar were greater than they are now." But if the measure were necessary to the profession of the law, then a fortiori is it applicable to other professions. They were establishing a precedent that must be ex- tended to the Army, the Navy, and politicians, and striking at the main- spring of noble action, the desire to leave an immortal name.

Turning to that point of greatest importance, the Court of Appeal, he found a fiction and a reality : the fiction is as to the jurisdiction of the House of Lords—the mutes and ciphers said to exercise the jurisdiction ; the reality is, that the jurisdiction is in the Lord Chancellor sitting alone. There have been times when there were giants, when that was the best pos- sible tribunal ; but we have passed from the days of giants to those of pig- mies. The Lords' report admits tluit the uncertainty of the tribunal, whe-

ther it would consist of one or more, and the unsatisfactory hearing of- Scotch appeals, are evils : but the bill does not meet them. The uncer- tainty remains. There is in the bill no ouster of the jurisdiction of the Ex-Chancellors—three or four of them are roving about the House of Lords —no ouster of the jurisdiction of the Master and Lord Advocate all may safely claim the privilege of sitting and voting on appeals ; and the vote of each will be equal with that of one of the two Deputy-Speakers, who are to be appointed at salaries of 5000/. or 60001. a year. Clearly this measure is a delusion and not a reality. The bill admits that it is indispensable the tribunal should sit during proroeations : but pay has become necessary to insure the performance of these judicial duties. "Now, while the House of Lords maintained their dignity by exercising their judicial powers with- out receiving salaries, I could understand that the continuance of this ju-, risdiction might strengthen the position of the learned body to whom they intend to intrust it ; but when you tell me that they are to be hired jour- neymen, paid for their work by the House of Commomi, I cannot say that there is either dignity or honour in- such a position. The House of Lords can only increase their strength by performing their old hereditary office rn their old hereditary way, to the satisfaction of the people and without pay. In the Privy Council—which you all agree in commending—you have un- paid judges, .performing with dignity the duties confided to them, to the en- tire satisfaction both of the profession and of the country."

The second clause of the bill limits the selection. "Observe that by

the limitation in that clause the Crown is confined in its selection of these' new Judeesc within a very narrow space. In 1840, when the Judicial Corn-' mittee of the Privy Council was appointed, and when, if ever a measure of this kind ought to have been proposed, the right moment for its introduction had arrived, this limitation would have excluded Lord Campbell, Lord St. Leonards, Dr. Lushington, and Lord Rutherford; even at the present mo- ment it will exclude one, I believe, of the Lords Justices, Sir W. P. Wood.; Mr. Pemberton Leigh, on whom such deserved encomiums have been bestowed- the present Law-officers of the Crown and the Law-officers of Lord Derbre Government,—men equal in character, in learning, in inde- pendence, and in ability, to any gentleman who ever adorned the legal pro-

m.. And this is the bill which we are asked to pass without ing

because the House of Lords will accept ft or- nothing; because they will take no other means of satisfying the expectations of the people ; because, if it is not passed, they will allow things to remain as they are !" It has been said that three Judges is an inadequate number : yet three he the number in the bill. If men preOminent in power are wanted, some inducement larger than the salary of a Puisne Judge should be held out, yet 5000/. a year is exactly- the salary of a Paiute Judge.

Sir James contended that the bill would debauch both the bench. and the

bar ; as the Crown will have the power of holding out an hereditary peerage to a complaisant Deputy-Speaker. Then the business of the Court—the average number of appeals being 70 per annum—would be transacted at great cost ; and it became a question whether additional business ought no to be thrown on any new Court. Besides, there' was the question of the double appeal. "These- are grave considerations, not to be decided in the middle of July, and bye declaration of the Howe of Lords that they will take this measure or nothing. If there is the least 'spirit in the House of Commons, they will reject the proposition, and take their own time and' their opportunity to consider the important questions it involves." (Cheers.)

Reviewing the conduct of the House of Lords as a court of appeal in the

case of O'Connell, the Bridgewater will case,. and Scotch cases, to show the imperfections of the tribunal,. Sir James said that the House must either, proprio vigore, amend its juridication, or frankly give it up ; and he sketched a mode of effecting the former. "f believe they, have the power of sum- moning to their aid, not only the Common Law Judges, but the Equity Judges and the Members of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council. Why, at the commencement of each session should not blithe causes entered for hearing be classified by the Lord Chancellor; the Canimon Law appeals be sent to a Committee of Common Law Judges and certain Privy Councillors, the Equity causes to the Equity Judges and also c'ei:tain Privy Councillors, the Scotch appeals distributed to certain Judges cold the .Lord Justice General and the Lord Justice Clerk ? and' even .two 'more of the Scotch, Judges might with great propriety be made Privy Councillors. 'The dele- gation must be outside the House of Lords—in the Painted Chamber, for in- stance—the Lord Chancellor always presiding:, and a certain number of Judges hearing the causes and having voices.. Lord St. Leonards says that nothing can be more derogatory to the science of tile. law than debates on the law itself, in public; between the Judges. What takes place in the Painted

i

Chamber n regard to the report need not be known except from the report itself and the conclusion come to ; it should be repeated to the House from the woolsack as the judgment of the Court of Appeal." He did not think that a reformatory process can be safely trusted to them who have to reform. themselves. He thought the House should take. ample Ulm to consider the subject; and that if there were to be new legislation' it would be better to begin de novo. For his part, he could not hesitate to vote either for re- jection or delay.

Mr. Houtrnatt Pentsit nevi appeared as the defender of the bill. He was not under the impression that the /total Were bound to accept it because it was the only measure to which' th'd'Honse of Lords would consent, but the question was surrounded with'ilifticulties and he saw no way. of overcoming theta better than that fttil%oied by this bill. Sir James Graham's suggestion would amount tifi thin.—there would be an appeal to' the same body of judges from within the parties appealed. That would only show there was no necessity fd appeals. Yap/easing his belief that the Crown is competent to grant a peerage for life, he de- fended the limitation of that prerogative, and insisted that this limits.- tion itself met Sir James Graham's objection that the bill would under- mine the hereditary Peerage. It would be better to try and improve the jurisdiction of the House of Lords than venture on a course of mere experiment. So long as the fountain-head of justice is in the House of Lords, it is unassailable by any corruption or influence of the Crown ; but if the appellate

ellen were transferred to the Judicial Com- mittee of the Privy Council, it would be in the hands of the Crown; for no members of the Privy Council can be appointed or remain without the pleasure of the Cretins. Though thus supporting the principle of the bill, Mr. Palmer regarded it as defective in detail, and predicted that if it passed with only two Judges whose salary did not exceed that of Puisne it would be a miserable failure.

The bill was further supported by Mr. CoLtrza, and opposed by Mr. J. J. PHILLIMORE.

Lord Jose: RUSSELL remarked that the speeches in favour of the bill

had increased the doubts of those who are unfavourable to it ; the Attor- ney-General almost made an apology for introducing the bill, and Mr. Boundell Palmer confessed that it would fail unless there were more than two Judges and salaries exceeding 6000k a year. In spite of the learned authorities quoted, Lord John doubted whether the remedy is required. In some degree the evils alleged have always existed. No one can say that from Lord Hardwick° downwards there have not been periods when men of great intellects presided in the House of Lords; and if that is the case, does not the bill provide for a temporary evil only, that may in two or three years hence disappear ? He thought that the practice of selecting the ablest man belonging to the party in poWer was not such a failure as some gentlemen seemed to imagine. Lord Cotten- ham, he knew, "thought of recommending that a Judicial Committee

of the House of Lords should sit during the recess of Parliament; that at the opening of the session they should make a report upon the several cases they had heard ; and that then the House of Lords should be moved to confirm their report and deliver judgment accordingly. Why, that would remedy a great part of the evil complained of." But if he yielded to the authorities, he should still think the bill would make the tribunal worse than it is now. Suppose the Lord Chancellor sat with two Puisne Judges, and they reversed the decisions of the Courts of Common Law and the Lord Chancellor likewise : would not that tribunal be worse than the one in existence?

"If we have a remedy, let us have a complete remedy. Let us have a Lord Chancellor, with four of the ablest men you can have, sitting as an appellate tribunal. If you can secure such a tribunal, trustworthy and effi- cient, I am ready for one to vote the necessary funds ; and I might go along with the proposal of the honourable and learned Member for Suffolk if a change is to be made. -But I say, do not fall between the two ; do not have a tribunal which is neither the House of Lords nor a good appellate tribu- nal chosen from the best men who can be found, but a hybrid creation which partakes of both and does not satisfy the just expectations of the country." Formerly the Lay Lords assisted in the judgments of the Court of Appeal; but when the House of Lords ordered that two Lay Lords should sit to make up a.quorum, nobody could pretend that they heard and decided appeals, Having trot over this, the House proposed to go further, and to let the Lord Chancellor sit with two persons who are not Judges because they are Peers, but Peers because they are Judges. That completely alters the nature of the tribunal. "The Lord Chancellor sits in one room with two Lords Jus- tices, and that is the appellate tribunal of the Court of Chancery. He sits in another room with two learned Lords is Deputy-Speakers ; and, because he sits in the same room in which the House of Lords sits in the evening to discuss political matters, that is to be called maintaining the appellate ju- risdiction of the Lords. Sir, I hope the House will not give its sanction to such a sham."

Touching on the question of Life Peerages, which he thought had been unnecessarily raised, Lord John asked whether the House of Lords intended to take away that prerogative which Lord Coke and a great many other au- thorities say the Crown possesses ? Lord St. Leoiuirds and Lord Campbell have said the bill does take it away ; Lord Lansdowne has said that it does not. Somebody proposed to insert words snaking the meaning of the bill clear. But that would have left no subject of dispute in the House. Then they sent the bill to the House of Commons, and asked the Commons to ac- cept it in that ambiguous way, and make an act of Parliament to continue two parties in the Upper Chamber. "A more indecent measure or a more unfit mode for Parliament to deal with the prerogative of the 'Crown, has never been brought forward." (Loud cries of "Hear, hear !") For his own part, he believed that the Crown does possess the prerogative, but that the prerogative not having been exercised during the good times of the con- stitution, he thought it would be fitting to lay down its exact limits. It would not, however, be advantageous to confine life peerages to the profes- sion of the law. "Upon the whole, I have come to the conclusion, that, although I see no immediate or pressing urgency (however much I may differ from others in that opinion-) for any great reform in the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords—for I believe that the House of Lords could themselves make such changes as would render their court of appeal satisfactory to the country—still, if a change is to be made, I say, let us have a change which takes away the tribunal of apr, from the house of Lords altogether—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear r —and let us establish a tribunal which shall be complete in itself, and w 'eh shall consist not of the Puisne Judges, but of the most eminent men that can be found in the profession." The SOLICITOR...GENERAL brought the debate to a close by a speech in favour of the bill. The House of Lords, he said, did not usurp the ap- pellate jurisdiction—nothing could be a greater mistake than to suppose so. The House of Lords had always possessed jurisdiction in writs of error and on questions of common law, and in 1686 they established their right to jurisdiction in equity. At the present time the state of the appellate tribunal is-nnsatiafactory. Deputy-Speakers were formerly ap- pointed to increase the judicial strength of the House of Lords ; and it is now only proposed to make that perpetual which has been formerly re- sorted to on a few occasions. As to the question of Life Peerages, the power of the Crown to create life Peers has never been questioned. The question is simply, whether Peersfor life can it and vote in the House of Lords. Coke's dig:turn might be taken as an assertion of the ac- knowledged right of the CrOwn, without reference to the constitutional right of a Peer so treated to sit and vote. That right is determined by a Committee of Privileges. The bill does not affect the prerogative at all, except to limit it ; and such limitation is perfectly conslitutionnl. It would be rash to reject this bill because it contains that limitation. The House of COMMODB, he hoped, would shrink from reopening a question already settled, and thus prevent the concord between the House of Lords and the Crown.

On a division, the amendment was negatived by 191 to 142; and the bill was read a second - - _ Mr. Itornuen asked whether Mr. Raikes Currie intended, at the stage of going into Committee, to proceed with the motion of which he had given notice for referring the bill to a Select Committee ? Mr. Curatrs—" I do.' (" Hear, hear! ")

On Tuesday, Lord Joan RUSSELL, seeing among the orders of the day this—" The Appellate Jurisdiction (House of Lords) Salaries and Re- tiring Pensions, Committee thereupon "—expressed his surprise, and hoped the Government were not going on with so important a bill that night. The Caine-mime of the EXCHEQUER explained, that the clause fixing the amount of the salaries could not be introduced until the House had passed a resolution in Committee. The resolution would be merely formal, and would not bind the House to anything. On Wednesday, the House went into Committee, and the formal resolution was adopted, nem. con.

On the motion • for going into Committee on the bill, on Thursday evening, Mr. Luxus Corinth moved his amendment, that the bill should be referred to a Select Committee. His speech in support of this motion was rather a novelty in the House of Commons, as it dealt with very serious statements in an amusing vein, sometimes bordering on broad farce.

In his exordium, Mr. Currie pointed out the position of the Premier. The

other night, Lord Palmerston said that compromises were often expedient and justifiable. Now Lord Palmerston himself holds his seat on the Trea- sury-bench by a compromise. He is willingly supported _by .the Liberal party. The bone and sinew of that party advocate vote by ballot, a large extension of the suffrage, and the entire abolition of church-rates. Lord Palmerston advocates none of those measures, but manfully maintains his own opinions. The Liberal party have long supported his Foreign _policy, and together they fought the battle of Free-trade. But the Liberal party remember, far more than all these things, that when reputations and expe- rienced statesmen fell scattered around like autumn-leaves, Lord Palmerston stood firm, nailed his colours to the mast, threw his energy into the COlInCilS of the Crown, maintained the honour of the country, and restored peace to Europe. Therefore, Mr. Currie was glad, by a compromise honourable to both parties, to call the noble Lord his leader. But allegiance and leadership are corelative duties. A great party cannot be put up one night and knocked down another to suit its leaders. Aided by a select band of mercenaries— he meant those persons with respect to whom certain agreeable qssoniations connected with quarter-day would be dissolved if they voted against the noble Lord—he crossed over to the other side, and there rallying a body of Tories, challenged his own party and put them to the rout. When, next morning, he walked over the field of battle, accompanied by his aide-de- camp, Mr. Hayter—that is, when he analyzed the division-list--he must have been inclined to say with. Pyrrhus that one more such victory would be his ruin. Mr. Currie hoped that manoeuvre would not be repeated. Lord Palmerston has ability almost for anything but he cannot serve two masters—he cannot lead the Liberal party in the House of Commons, and do the bidding and register the edicts ofLord Derby: Having thus spoken out frankly what a great number of people were say- ing behind the backs of Ministers, Mr. Currie severely, though with a mix- ture of humour, criticised the bill; and the transactions that led to its ap- pearance in the' House of Commons. He compared the skirmishing in the- other House to the battles of the condottieri, where after a long day's thump- big and banging nobody was killed. Lord Palmerston, with Mr. Disraeli blandly smiling at him, seemed like the knight in the old ballad who made a compact with one that should be nameless, and got the worst of the bar- gain. Mr. Currie described the scenesin thelother House, before the lanps‘l and in the green-room, from a theatrical point of view ; and read to the ' House an imaginary conversation, in blank verse, between Lord Derby and Lord Granville, wherein Lord Campbell figures as " Campobello " wrapping Lord Derby's' dig at the prerogative in some sham semblance of a law re- form." Going on in this strain, Mr. Currie said some severe things against the bill,—that it would limit an undoubted prerogative ; that it would de- bauch the beach; that it was a monstrous sham that it was intended to stave off a discussion whether the appellate jurisdiction should remain in the House of Lords : and he . urged the House to set about an inquiry- such as he proposed, in order to find how they best might establish a high court of final appeal. Mr. EVELYN DENISON seconded the amendment As he was suffering from indisposition, and could not speak later in the evening, he proposed to trouble them at once with a few remarks.

If the measure were a compromise, that would be rather a recommendation

to him ; but he did not fi i

Stud in t the elements of a compromise. It

destroyed the prerogative of the Crown to make life Peers. When the power of the Crown was first questioned, the House of Lords said it was competent to discharge its judicial duties ; then it gravely announced that it was in such a weak and rotteitcondition that it could not be improved by its own power. It was said that the Peerage would be swamped by a ffight of lawyers, when the question was about introducing one lawyer: a short

time after, was proposed under this bill that a whole covey of lawyers

in

should be introduced. One witty Lord said that a life Peer could only be regarded as a " second chop" Peer : now it is proposed to snake not one but four second chop" Peers.

Having strongly condemned the measure, Mr. Denison turned to Lord Pal-

merston; told him how proud they were of him, who had not only been foremost in battle, but who had taken more than his share of daily drudgery in the trenches. He hoped the noble Lord was equally satisfied with his soldiers. Then let him not suffer this miserable bill to come between them and him at the close of the campaign. He ought not to try and force what had been called the worst bill introduced into the House of Commons for twenty years, against the wishes of 140 of his warmest supporters. He begged Lord Palmerston to consider the objectionable nature of the mea- sure, and the position in which it placed him with his supporters, and not proceed further. These two remarkable speeches were followed by a defence of the mea- sure from Mr. Ms.i.iss and Mr. WIGRAM, and a sinart opposition speech from Mr. CARDWELL.

Then Mr. Gladstone and Lord Pahnerston rose together, but the latter gave way. - - - -

Mr. GLADSTONE added another, to the vigorous speeches against the ,

bill. First, he smartly handled the arguments of Mr. Melissa and the Attorney-General; attacking warmly the position that the House of Commons ought to peas the bill because the House of Lords would not agree to another solution of the question. Then he passed from the ar- guments used by the supporters of the bill to the bill itself.

As to the prerogative, how does the bill deal with that ? It says that "not more than four persons shall have seats in the House of Lords at one time as Peers for life only." Could the English language more clearly ex- press a declaration that the number of four life Peers is to be the absolute .111a:tin:turn fixed by law: But if it were meant to preserve the right of ap- piiinting life Peers, Why not say so, instead of leaving the point ambiguous.

There cannot be a graver question than that of life peerages. It hag been inconsiderately raised, but that is no reason why it should be inconsiderately fastened down by legislation. The House of Commons has a right to ask for time to deliberate. The measure deals with the question in subserviency to the question of a court of appeal. There is no inevitable relation between the two questions—one ought not to be made the victim of the other. Then it is proposed to make the House of Lords a pensioner on the public purse : the House of Lords will suffer indignity from the adop- tion of such a principle. The independence of that House will be most se- cure so long as all its functions are discharged gratuitously. It was hardly too much, under the circumstances, to ask the Government to consent that the bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

After Mr. Gladstone, no one seemed inclined to rise ; but at length, in obedience to loud calls, Lord PALMERSTON rose to defend the measure. He was sorry there was such a strong difference of opinion ; but, how- ever painful it might be to find that he stood opposed to those who gene- rally support the Government, he felt it his duty to propose the bill. With respect to the appellate jurisdiction, he should be sorry to see it transferred from the House of Lords. On the question of Life Peerages, he thought that House had acted on an erroneous judgment in excluding Lord Wensleydale, but he denied that the bill was the result of a com- promise huddled up in a Committee for the convenience of parties. It is a compromise arising from the conflict of opinions. The bill is the best possible arrangement for reinforcing the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords. The Deputy-Speakers were not to be paid for the exercising of their legislative but for their judicial functions ; and Mr. Gladstone might as well object to paying the Lord Chancellor as to pay- ing Deputy-Speakers. "A great deal has been said as to the effect of the bill upon the preroga- tive of the Crown. It is manifest, I think, to anybody who reads the bill, that it acknowledges the prerogative and limits it ; that, on one side, those who object to life peerages have acknowledged the prerogative of the Crown to create them' and on the other, those who maintain the prerogative have consented to alimitation for the purpose of establishing the appellate juris- diction of the House of Lords on a satisfactory basis." Mr. ROEBUCK, not satisfied with this statement., appealed to the Law- officers of the Crown for their legal opinion its to the effect of the bill on the prerogative.

The Soucrron-Gwrinsat said, that if such a prerogative existed, then beyond question the bill limited that prerogative. On a division, Mr. Currie's amendment was carried by 155 to 133. The triumphant majority loudly testified their sense of this victory.

Bunroraxes or LONDON coA Dennear.

The LORD CHANCELLOR brought in a bill to enable the Bishops of London and Durham to resign their sees' and making provision for them after they have retired. He explained that the Bishops are disqualified, by the state of their health, from adequately discharging their episcopal duties.

Lord RtnnsnaLs said, it would be better to bring in a general mea- sure' enabling Bishops, under certain restrictions, to retire when they feel themselves disqualified. The Earl of HARROWBY said, that no doubt it general measure would be eventually adopted, but that in the nieen time it was of' the highest importance to provide for the bishoprics of London and Durham. Lord CAMPBELL concurred in this, and ex- pressed a hope that Bishops would be put on the same footing as Judges.

The bill was read a first time, on the understanding that the second reading. should not he taken till Monday.

- CIVIL, SERVICE APPOLNTMENTS.

The Wednesday sitting, in consequence of the entry of the Guards, did not begin till three o'clock,- instead of twelve the ordinary hour.

Lord GODERICH moved that the HOWE. should resolve itself into a Committee on the Civil Service.

The CHANCELLOR -of the EXCHEQUER said, he wished to give -such an an explanation as might induce Lord Goderich not to proceed with his motion: Early in the session the subject was discussed. [The House resolved on the 24th April to go into Committee on the following day upon an address for appointments by open competition.] Since that time the motion bail stood over, but the system then in force had continued in operation ; and Sir George stated the number of examinations and ap- pointments from May 1855 to the 30th June 1856.

The number of candidates nominated was 2390 ; of these 1055 were ex- amined in London and 693 in the provinces snaking a total of 1748 persons examined. Certificates were granted to 564 persoes on the London exami- nations; to 445 personaon the provincial examinations, and to 61 persons on the reports of heads of departments, making a fetal of 1070 persons to whom certificates ,were granted. The number of certificates refused on the London examinations was 818, and on the provincial 2:38; making a total of 556 certificates refused against .1070 granted. Therelore the result was as nearly as possible that two persons succeeded in obtaining certificates to one who failed. That had been the practical reSult of the existing system up to the present time ; and the House would see that it had the effect of sepa- rating the worthy from the unworthy: candidates. Lord Goderich had pro- posed that any persons who offered might compete. Under the plan at pre- sent in operation, the heads of departments, who have a strong interest in obtaining efficient servants, select several candidates for examination ; and it is their study to present such candidates as will enable the Civil Service Commissioners to select fit men. The system now in operation, therefore, offers satisfactory securities for good appointments. But the system of literary competitive exionth i ations s not suited to a numerous class like tide- waiters and country letter-carriers. The experience of the Civil Service Commissioners is in favour of a gradual and cautious extension of the Prin- ciple of appointments by competition. But how is 'that principle to be ex- tended ?' If all appointments are made on the principle of competition; all the candidates must he brought to one placerto:compete; and if Linden, Edinburgh, and Dublin were selected as the plaees of examination, they would enjoy a monopoly. That shows the difficulty ef 'laying down any universal rules on the lubject. Butineans may he found for having exami- nations in different parts of the country, and of gradually adopting the principle recommended 'by' Lord Goderich. - -

Sir Sreeronn Noeineore submitted to Lord Goderich, whether, after this explanation' it would not be desirable to, diseharge the order. Lord GODEHICH said, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken in this way on a former occasion, he should have left the question in the hands of the Government. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the speech just delivered, and he was willing that the order should be dia- ged; undertaking, however, to bring the subject forward again if the Government did not act up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech.—Order discharged. THE Aantoraistroir Eau A little before two o'clock on Tuesday morning, just before the Mon- day evening sitting came to an end, the Appropriation Bill was brought in, and, on the motion of Mr. Wnsolc, read a first time, amid the cheers of the House. Contrary to custom, it was this year introduced in a printed form.

On the motion for going into Committee on- this bill, Mr. WI-s- wath called attention to the proviso on clause 30, under which the Government had power to apply a surplus upon one vote to meet a deficiency upon another. There arose a considerable debate upon the propriety of retaining the proviso. Sir Jamas Onssinso, Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. Writhe-, and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, all concurred in looking upon the proviso as necessary. The rule is, that each depart- ment hail keep its expenditure strictly within the vote taken on account of it; but in cases of unexpected urgency a department is permitted to apply to the Treasury, and the Treasury, having absolute authority in the matter, allows or disallows the application at its pleasure. In Com- mittee, Sir JAMES GRAHOM suggested, and the CHANCELLOR of the Ex- CHEQUER adopted the suggestion as a check on the Treasury, that a state- ment.of all these transactions should be laid before the House at the close of the financial year.

The bill passed through Committee.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Public Health Bill, Mr. KNIGHT moved that the House should go into Committee that day six months. He objected, that while the stringent clauses in the Public Health Act of 1848 were retained, the remedial clauses were all omitted ; that the right of appeal under the present act against the Board of Health was omitted ; and that the amount of money that might be raised on the security of the rates was doubled. Mr. PALK seconded the amendment. Mr. COWPER said that the bill was an instalmenthakirrequired, since all that is required cannot be obtained. It ww*t?..avel amend some practical details, which the local boards say prevent them from efficiently carrying out the Health Act. Parliament might dial with organic changes in the Board of Health next year. Mr. HENLEY, MT. THOMAS GREENE, MT. BARROW, and Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE, spoke against the bill ; Mr. Berms alone supporting it. Mr. DUNCOMME made a humorous speech. He did not know whether there was any Member present who was what was called an Administrative Reformer. He did not see the honourable and learned Member for Sheffield. (" Hear, hear !" and laughter.) That honourable and learned Member was going to reform the Administrative Reform Association itself:-, he ought therefore to be here: "‘ He is going to set us all to rights, not only in Leadenhall Street, but in New Palace Yard, at Somerset House, at the Admiralty, at the Horse Guards, and at Downiug Street. But if the honourable and learned gentleman would come down to this neighbourhood, he would find in a corner of a street a little hole called the Board of Health, where he would discover eomfortablyensconced a near relation of the Prime Minister, a brother of a Cabinet Minister, and the relative of another Cabinet Minister—all very snug berths for itinisterial patronage to bestow. No wonder Ministers want to continue the Board of Health. If the Chairman of the Administrative Reform Asisociation would just call in at the Board of Health, he would find those three gentle- inen I have named sitting there and if he were to ask them what they were about, and say to them—' You cost the country a great deak coal we have a right to ask you what you are about ? ' I am sure the right honourable gentleman the Member for Hertford would reply, 'That is the great difficulty. (('heers and laughter.) We have nothing to do ; we want to know what we are to do, and tow we are to humbug and delude Parlia- ment in order to get it to continue the Board. We have one plan in our head; we are going to adopt the cowpox throughout the country, and we mean to superintend it. (Laughter.) We had also another plan, which we tried to accomplish; we proposed that the President of the Board of Health should be President of the new Council if' Medical men.' But that bill has all of a sudden dropped ; so that one of their supports is gone_ But there ia one more chance ; find what, the Reuse will•us.15, is that ? Why, the HOMO Department_ proposes to transfer the-administration of the Burial Act to the Board of Health; a very pretty .sequel ! First, .you suiperintend the general health of the people ; nett; Ion promote vaccina- tion then you would preside over the Medical Boort; ,-and then, when the curain drops, you come t.° the Burial Board—the last %shift you have. (Loud laughter.) I am against all the powers which thin, bill confers. Let the people dii. the work themselves. I oppose the Beard .aire any terms. It has ' got one year to live; I hope it will be its last, and, thaViveshall never hear of it again." (Loud cheers.) .,11 • On a division, the amendment was carried 61. Whereupon Mi. COWPER said, that, "under the eircumstauces;" ui should adept a suggestion thrown out in debate, and introduce a 'ebtfitlnuanee bill for one year.

TKNANT RIGHT.

Mr. MOORE moved the discharge of the order, for going into Committth on his Tenant-Right (Ireland) Bill ; the latenesa of the session not per- mitting justice to the merits of the measure. Considerable amusement was caused by the entry of Lord PALMERSTON at the fag-end of the small discussion and at his commencing a speech againstvtliethill, in ignorance that it hactbeen. abandoned by its promoter. Mr: Horsman whispered the 'state of the case to his leader, and Lord l'alinerdoarapidly taking the -hint, was about to sit down with the quotation "The martins nil nisi bo- num," when Mr. Horsman whispered again, and Lord Palmerston started 'afresh with "a word as to the -intentions of the Government respecting this question next session." He only said, however, that although in its present temper Parliament was not likely to pass any measure Govern- ment might bring in, they would, of course, feel it. their duty to give the most respectful consideration to any measure whick any independent Member may introduce.

BILLs WrretnaAww.. '

In the course of Thursday evening, five Government measures were withdrawn,—the Wills and Administrations Bill,. the .Poor-law Amend- ment (No. 2) Bill, the Vaccination Bill, the Dublin University Bill, and the Burial Acts Amendment Bill.

Nevem OFFICERS.

Captain Samara, in moving a resolution that the disadvantageous position of the retired officers at Greenwich Hospital is worthy of the early and favourable consideration of the Board of Admiralty, com- plained that they are deprived of their half-pay, while the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor get their half-pay in addition to their allow- ance from the funds of the Hospital. The motion had a wider scope, and took in the senior Commanders and Lieutenants of the Navy. The motion was supported by Sir GEORGE PECHELL, Admiral WAL- -COW, and Sir CHARLES NA.PIER. Sir CHARLES Woon stated, that the places in Greenwich Hospital were not looked upon in the profession as bad places; nor are they so badly paid. The half-pay of a Vice-Admiral is 5931. a year; a Captain at Greenwich Hospital gets 5951. a year. The half-pay of a Rear-Ad- miral is 4561. a year ; the allowance of a Commander at Greenwich is 4921. The Lieutenants at Greenwich Hospital receive 417/.—more than the half-pay of a Captain. The Treasury has the power to allow half- pay, but it is generally withheld when other emoluments are enjoyed.

An attempt was made to count out the House, but it failed; and the House divided on the resolution—rejecting it by 38 to 31.

THE CHELSEA INQUIRY.

The Earl of LUCAN, on Tuesday, inquired whether the Government would lay before Parliament the report of the Board of Officers who sat recently at Chelsea ? He knew that the report was only signed on Fri- day last, that it had to be laid before the Queen, and that some time must elapse before it could be presented to Parliament ; but he thought it not unreasonable that the Government should use all despatch. Lord Paigainix said that it was impossible to name a day. The report was in the hands of the Commander-in-chief, and the lamented illness of that gallant officer might prevent the report from being presented to her Majesty for some time. As soon as Government had formed an opinion on it, they would lay it before Parliament. Lord LUCAN expressed dissatisfaction : he wished to know whether the report had or had not been presented to her Majesty? Lord Pea- Unita— It has not." Lord LUCAN—" It is generally understood that it was presented to her Majesty yesterday." Lord PANWRE—" It has not been presented to her Majesty ; at least I have been so informed." Lord Lees); was not satisfied with the answer : he said he should renew his question on Friday.

NATVAB OF SURAT TREATY BLLL.

The Nawab of Surat Treaty Bill, carried through the House of Com- mons with the consent of the President of the Board of Control, was lost on Monday in the House of Lords with the consent of the Postmaster- General. The motion for the second reading, as a private bill, was made -by the Marquis of CLANRICARDE , who, supported by the Earl of ALBE- MARLE, did battle on behalf of the claimant under the bill. Appealed to by the Duke of Aliciri.L, Lord REDESDALE, as Chairman of Committees on Private Bills, said that this bill had come before the House so irre- gularly as a private bill, that he felt bound to move that it be read a second time that day six months. The Duke of Alluvit and the Earl or ELLENBOROUGH entered into the merits of the case, and opposed the .claim set up by the promoters. Lord Ellenborough earnestly desired to kubmit to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the question whether- by the treaty of 1800 the annuity granted to the Nawab and his heirs wasedeseendible to heirs-general or only to heirs-male. The amendment was agreed to, and the bill therefore was 10St.

SITE OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY.

On Tuesday, Lord Dausiumuo brought up the Queen's answer to the address moved by Lord Eleho on the subject of the site of the Na- tional Gallery. It informed the House that her Majesty had directed a commission of inquiry to issue for the purpose desired.

ITALIAN AFFAIRS.

Early in the week, Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave notice that he should bring on a motion—perhaps on Friday—for the production of corre- spondence relating to the affairs of Italy. On Thursday, however, at the suggestion of Lord PALMERSTON, Lord Joux agreed to fix on Monday for bki motion.

" COUNT-OUT."

As Colonel LINDSAY was stating the case of the Lieutenant-Colonels of the Guards injured by the retrospective action of the warrant of October last, [against which the famous memorial was levelled,] the House was counted out, at nine o'clock on Tuesday evening.